When is a radio not a radio?When it's a cake? Well obviously, but it wouldn't be a Wireless Waffle article if it was about cake now would it? Waffles perhaps, but cake?

Anyhow the correct answer is 'When it's a Feynman Radio'. What, I hear you ask, is a Feynman Radio. In order to answer that we have to step back in time to the works of the Maestro James Clerk Maxwell. His Electromagnetic Wave Equation is the mathematical basis of all radio signals, propagation and so forth and desribes how radio waves travel.

Maxwell's equations (in common with many) square numbers before operating on them. One of the key numbers which is in Maxwell's equation is 't' standing for 'time'. The equations describe how Electromagnetic (radio) waves change with time. However, the factor which accounts for time is squared. Now this in itself may not seem important BUT the square of a negative number is the same as the square of a positive one. So, according to Maxwell's equations, a radio wave will look identical whether it has travelled 5 seconds forwards in time or 5 seconds backwards in time! Whoa! Hang on there a minute (or minus a minute). Does this mean that every radio transmitter emits two waves, one which travels forward in time and one which travels backwards? Well that's where Richard Feynman comes in. He argues that not only is this true, but that it is true of all atomic and sub-atomic particles and that for every occurance where something travels forward in time, the same thing happens and travels backwards.

But this is rubbish right? If it were true, we would be bombarded by endless radio signals and light beams from the future. This, argue many people, is evidence that the whole idea of signals travelling backwards in time is just a mathematical theory and not a practical reality. Others argue that the whole notion of 'deja vu' is a perfect illustration of why there must be a way of seeing into the future.

But maybe the fact that we can't hear 'backwards' radio signals is down to something much more straightforward. For example:

* Radio signals travel at the speed of light. Those coming backwards from the future would cross our own path going backwards at the speed of light. We, on the other hand are travelling fowards at the speed of light. Our paths, therefore, cross at twice the speed of light which means the backwards signals would be, to all intents and purposes, invisible.

* Radio signals travelling backwards from the future would be on negative frequencies. As all existing radio receivers only tune to positive frequncies, ie those above 0 MHz, we are unable to receive them. A receiver tuned to minus 900 kHz would presumably receive future radio broadcasts perfectly well.

Here at Wireless Waffle headquarters, significant effort is being put into the development of a negative frequency radio, or an 'oidar' as we like to call it. Using things such as negative impedance converters we are seeking to synthesise a capacitor of several hundred negative picoFarads and an inductor of the appropriate number of negative microHenries such that they resonate at a negative frequency. Using a 'edoid' we hope to rectify any signals recived to feed a set of headphones. A negative antenna (an 'annetna') is proving more difficult, however we believe that a modified slot antenna in which the radiating element is a hole in a plate of metal rather than a traditional antenna which is metal in the middle of a hole (eg free space) may just do the job. Burying the annetna underground may also help but until the whole receiver is functioning it will be difficult to check.

Occasionally Wireless Waffle has been known to produce a few spoof entries (especially around April 1st!) however the Feynman Radio is real (try checking on the web). Our attempts to develop an oidar however may just be a reverse-time echo of something we failed to achieve several years from now.

Back in October 2009, Wireless Waffle brought to your attention the HF (short-wave) monitoring data produced on a quarterly basis by the ITU. Within these reports were a number of short-wave pirate stations and the original list of stations brought a lot of interest from these stations, both to see who had been 'caught' and to see how close the ITU had gotten to identifying their exact location. Based on the e-mails that were received following the article, it seems like some had hit the nail a little too closely on the head for comfort.

To see how the ITU were getting along, and who had been spotted more recently, a trawl of the montoring reports from January to June 2010 has been conducted and the results presented below. Those stations whose name is shown in CAPITALS were directly identified by the monitoring station concerned. Those in lower case have been identified using the various on-line blogs that report pirate reception.

Date

Time (UTC)

Freq (kHz)

Monitoring Station

Location

Station

03 Feb 10

0600-0600

4025

Berlin, Germany

UK

Laser Hot Hits

23 Feb 10

0000-0630

4025

Tarnok, Hungary

Laser Hot Hits

23 Feb 10

1830-2359

4025

Tarnok, Hungary

Laser Hot Hits

21 Apr 10

1830-2400

4025

Berlin, Germany

Laser Hot Hits

02 May 10

0600-2359

4025

Rambouillet, France

0W10 52N01 (Baldock, UK!)

Laser Hot Hits

23 May 10

0000-0630

4015

Tarnok, Hungary

Laser Hot Hits

16 May 10

1900-2212

5814.7

Rambouillet, France

0E17 52N45 (King's Lynn, UK)

Radio Telstar South

16 May 10

0700-0915

5815

Rambouillet, France

6E11 52N30 (Zwolle, Netherlands)

Orion Radio

27 Jun 10

0630-0820

5820

Tarnok, Hungary

Orion Radio

11 Apr 10

0854-0908

6203

Vienna, Austria

Radio Scotland International

09 Feb 10

1048

6210.2

CCRM, Belgium

Netherlands

MISTI RADIO

10 Jan 10

1818-2246

6220

El Casar, Spain

11E24 44N27 (Bologna, Italy)

Mystery Radio

20 Jan 10

1812-2350

6220

El Casar, Spain

11E24 44N27 (Bologna, Italy)

Mystery Radio

30 Jan 10

2002

6220

Baldock, UK

10E0 43N50 (Pisa, Italy)

MYSTERY RADIO

28 Feb 10

1100-1137

6220

Vienna, Austria

11E0 44N0 (Prato, Italy)

RADIO MARABU

06 Mar 10

1800-2350

6220

El Casar, Spain

11E24 44N27 (Bologna, Italy)

Mystery Radio

21 Mar 10

2012-2355

6220

El Casar, Spain

11E24 44N27 (Bologna, Italy)

Mystery Radio

06 Apr 10

1852-1917

6220

Vienna, Austria

Italy

MYSTERY RADIO

10 Apr 10

1900-2359

6220

El Casar, Spain

11E24 44N27 (Bologna, Italy)

MYSTERY RADIO

13 Jun 10

1730-1800

6220

Klagenfurt, Austria

12E0 43N0 (Perugia, Italy)

Mystery Radio

14 Jun 10

1700-1900

6220

Rambouillet, France

10E43 43N45 (Prato, Italy)

MISTERY RADIO

15 Jun 10

0700-0800

6255

Rambouillet, France

Netherlands

Cool AM

19 Jun 10

1530-1645

6374.1

Rambouillet, France

4E13 51N59 (Den Haag, Netherlands)

Radio Baken 16

09 Feb 10

0944

6299.2

CCRM, Belgium

RADIO RAINBOW

30 Apr 10

1918-2005

6375

Vienna, Austria

Netherlands

Radio Relmus

09 Feb 10

0914

6376.6

CCRM, Belgium

Netherlands

RADIO DUTCH WING

20 Jun 10

1015-1600

6399.9

Rambouillet, France

1W45 51N21 (Marlborough, UK)

Laser 558 relay

11 Mar 10

1815-2200

6870

El Casar, Spain

9E7 45N18 (Milan, Italy)

RADIO PLAYBACK INT

11 Apr 10

1500-1700

6959.9

Rambouillet, France

4E39 51N41 (Breda, Netherlands)

Radio Jan Van Gent

03 Jan 10

0800

7610

El Casar, Spain

Italy

RADIO AMICA

10 Apr 10

0600-2115

7610

Rambouillet, France

12E56 43N55 (Pesaro, Italy)

RADIO AMICA

11 Apr 10

0530-0600

7610

Rambouillet, France

12E56 43N55 (Pesaro, Italy)

RADIO AMICA

10 Apr 10

1247-1407

7610

Vienna, Austria

11E30 44N30 (Bologna, Italy)

RADIO AMICA

Please be assured that it is not our intention to name and shame these stations in any way, nor is the Wireless Waffle team opposed to hobby broadcasting (for want of a better word) but we do believe that the stations concerned should be aware that their location may not be as secret as they had hoped.

The question of how accurate these measurements are is a good one. The level of concern that seemed to arise from the previous list suggests that they may be relatively good. However, let's take a real example. There are 10 measurements relating to Mystery Radio. Of these, five different locations are logged. The map below shows the position of these loggings.

The distance between the closest of all these measurements is around 20 miles (32 km). It is possible that this is the best resolution that some of the monitoring stations can achieve. At this kind of resolution, a ground-based receiver would be unlikely to hear the transmitter. Ground wave signals would not travel this far, and it is the ground wave signal which is required for a person on the ground to be able to 'home in' on the location of a transmitter.

So should pirate radio stations be concerned about being tracked down as a result of the work of the ITU. From the evidence above, it seems that this data alone is probably insufficient to allow a station's location to be identified in one simple move. However, if you are running one of these stations and the location which is shown is more accurate than those for Mystery Radio - and certainly if its within 5 km at which point a man on the ground would be able to track you down - perhaps it's time to up sticks and find a new site!

One of the most common questions that the Wireless Waffle team are asked by those setting up radio transmitters is, "How much power do I need to cover an area X miles wide?". Such a question is virtually unanswerable as there are so many factors to take account of including the frequency of operation, the topography of the area, the kind of structures (buildings, trees) which are in the required coverage area, what kind of receivers people are using and much more. The observant will note that these factors are not ones which can necessarily be changed by the person operating the transmitter - unless they fancied chopping down a forest for example. What can be changed at the transmitting site are two relatively simple factors: the height of the antenna, and the power of the transmitter.

Such discussions therefore end up focussing on how high the antenna needs to be and what power the transmitter should be. But which is most effective in increasing coverage: height or power?

Let's tackle height first. Assuming we are trying to provide a signal over the earth and that there are no obstacles at all and that the earth has no undulations (hills and so on), then the range of a transmitter can easily be calculated from a simple line-of-sight rule. This tells us that for a particular height above the ground, the horizon (and thus the edge of the coverage area) will be a specific distance away. One oddity in this is that radio signals tend to get defracted a little by the Earth's atmosphere which has the effect of making the planet appear slightly less curved and thus extends the radio horizon about a third beyond the optical horizon. The chart below shows the optical and radio horizons for a transmitting antenna mounted at a certain height.

With an antenna about 10 metres above the ground, the radio horizon is about 10km away. If the height of the antenna is increased to 50 metres, the radio horizon increases to about 24 km - a very healthy improvement. It's perhaps worth noting that 'height above ground' could be generated by raising the height of the antenna, or by mounting it on top of heigh point (eg a hill).

Increasing the transmitter power also increases coverage, but not in quite the same way. Getting signals much beyond the radio horizon relies on various odd propagation techniques including refraction, defraction and scatter. In free space, increasing the power by a factor of 2 will increase the distance at which the signal is of equal strength by the square root of 2. So, if the signal is 30 dB at a distance of 10km, increasing the power by a factor of 2 will move the point at which the signal is 30 dB to a point approximately 14km away from the transmitter. Sadly, the Earth is not generally a 'free space' environment and signals fall away much quicker than this, even before the horizon is reached. The chart below shows a simulation of coverage for different transmitter powers, assuming an antenna height of 20 metres.

The distance to the radio horizon for a 20 metre heigh aerial is 15 km and in 'free space', in this example, this is reached by a power of 10 Watts. For the 'real life' example, 10 Watts only achieves a distance of around 10 km because of the fact that the Earth is not a free space environment. To achieve 15 km in 'real life' requires a power of nearer 50 Watts. What is immediately clear is that enormous increases in power are required to extend coverage. Even with 100 Watts, in our theoretical example, the distance acheived is still less than 20 km.

Increasing the height of the transmitting antenna is therefore, theoretically, a much more effective way of increasing coverage than turning up the power. Of course, it's not always possible to put up a high antenna, and in this situation more power is clearly better, but in general height wins every time. To show the difference, the map below (made using Radiomobile) shows the coverage for a transmitter nominally located in the centre of Oxford. It's animated (oo-err!) and cycles through the coverage which would be acheived for:

* A 10 Watt transmitter with an antenna height of 10 metres* A 40 Watt transmitter with an antenna height of 10 metres* A 10 Watt transmitter with an antenna height of 20 metres

The coverage achieved in the latter two cases is very similar, however in the map with the higher antenna, the coverage is more 'solid' than that with higher power. If this were a radio station, the higher antenna would provide a more reliable signal, especially for people on the move, than the lower antenna with higher power. The extent of the advantage of height over power means that it is generally more beneficial to identify an elevated transmitter site towards the edge of an area where coverage is required, rather than settle for one which is nearer the centre but lower. A transmitter on a hill overlooking a town will provide more solid coverage in the town for the same transmitter power than a site in a town centre. Hopefully, those now considering how best to maximise their coverage will think beyond Watts and consider that factor well understood by estate agents, location, location, location.

Last summer, here at Wireless Waffle, we came up with a design for an increadible piece of beach-wear for the short-wave listener which we cristened the 'Wireless Waffle Super Signal Holiday HF Antenna Apparel'. Not only has this become the must have item for improving reception whilst soaking up the sun, devotees have coined the nickname, 'SuSi' and it's an idea that has clearly caught on. At the end of our revelation of this unbelievable breakthrough in summer attire last year, we asked you to submit your own photos of the 'SuSi' which we would then share with other Wireless Waffle readers. And submit them you did! Here we present the 2010 SuSi Snapshot Selection. Together with the original device, it is enthralling to see so many variants in use, however we have our doubts about how effective some of the modified versions might be - so together with your photos, we have also included our view on how well the device pictured might perform.

This first picture was sent in by Jim Thrisby of Humberside and was taken in his laboratory with the device under test conditions, rather than out in the field. The unit in question has been modified to include a double, side-mounted dipole which will imbue it with some directionality. The use of an interconnecting cross-bar, however, will act as a short-circuit at higher frequencies and may limit the broadband functionality of the device. The inclusion of three distinct connection pads does, however, offer the wearer some flexibility in adopting the best position for reception whilst allowing the interconnecting wires not to get in the way.

This next image came from Tyrone Mulligan from South Carolina and shows a similar variant to that sent in by Jim. In this case, however, the horizontal interconnecting cross-bar is missing and its omission should ensure a wider frequency response. The three interconnection pads are also present, however the triangular (instead of square) shape and blue paint used to make them 'look pretty' may introduce a high impedance into the connection which is undesirable. The use of a conductive gel or paint will ensure a more solid contact. The modified SuSi is shown in use under good conditions and is clearly being well received by the wearer.

Tuning of a SuSi should not require any user intervention, however some experimenters such as Dave Brookes of Sydney, Australia, have suggested that some manual adjustment to the position of the various connecting wires can improve the clarity of reception. His photo shows a relatively standard SuSi but in which the support structure has been angled so as to increase the capture of incoming waves. Dave tells us that by using the device in this way, it is possible to receive many more short-waves and even some medium and long waves, but that effectiveness was reduced as it was too easy to get 'Chile' (or that's what we think Dave said).

This photo, which arrived by e-mail from Harman Tallow of Newquay, Cornwall, is apparently an attempt to use some Cornish witchcraft to improve the device's effectiveness. Whilst there addition of the two 'tuning coils' may improve the reception in some directions they also act to obscure significant amounts of the underlying support structure and may even weigh it down to produce a highly undesirable 'sag' in performance at some wavelengths. According to Harman, the field trials were relatively successful in that it was easier to mount the device on the support structure compared to the original design, but that overall, the reception was disappointing.

We were particularly impressed by the efforts of Damian Hextonwick. Damian doesn't tell us where he's from but does indicate that using multiple devices in the form of a 'phased array' produces one of the largest increases in the achievable range of the device that he has witnessed (though we once again note the erroneous use of the bandwidth restricting horizontal cross-strut). His attempt to join four such devices together as shown in his picture, produced sufficient voltage to excite receivers which were at a significant distance from the array. Whereas it is necessary to connect directly to a single device to get its benefits, standing in close proximity to multiple interconnected devices has impressive results.

Finally, Heinz Wiedemann of North Germany has attempted to take the concept of the SuSi one step further and produce a device which can be used for satellites. By expanding upon the concept of a mesh dish, he has produced this mesh SuSi which has an integral 'low navel block' (LNB) at its lowest point which focuses incoming signals. Unfortunately, the alignment proves very critical and without careful hands-on positining of the LNB, the supporting structure becomes badly distorted leading to highly unsatisfactory reception. Heinz does add, however, that the hands-on nature of this variant of the SuSi has many distinct benefits which he then refuses to scientifically quantify, rendering the results of his experiments somewhat suspect.

Overall, we have been highly impressed by the look, feel and ingenuity of the various models of SuSi that have been submitted to us. Please keep up the experiments and remember to send pictures your results to us. We can't wait to see what the next year of experimentation may bring and to share the joyous fruits of your labours and to enjoy the summer sunshine wherever you may be.